Author Details
Sargun Kaur
Ba.llb. 3rd year
Panjab University
Facts
On the night of July 13, 1955; Virsa Singh along with five other accused in an attempt to hurt Khem Singh stuck him with a spear. The very next day Khem Singh died of the blow from the spear as stated by the doctor. Virsa Singh along with five other accused were charged under section Sections 302/149, 324/149, and 323/149 of IPC now Section 103/190, 118/190, and 115(2)/190 BNS respectively. Later Virsa Singh was alone charged under section 302 based on the assertion that although he inflicted only one injury the wound was lethal enough to cause death.
Khem Singh was alive when taken to the doctor. According to the doctor’s report, there was” a punctured wound 2″ x r transverse in direction on the left side of the abdominal wall in the lower part of the iliac region just above the inguinal canal. Three coils of intestine were coming out of his wound”.
The court observed that even though the intention was only to injure the victim yet it resulted in his death. Virsa Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment. The others were acquitted of the charge of section 302 but were held liable and punishable under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 36 of IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, sending the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
The central issue in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab was whether the injury inflicted satisfied the elements of section 300 IPC.
Secondly, was it Virsa Singh’s intention to kill Khem Singh?
Thirdly, whether the injury inflicted was enough to cause the death of Khem Singh
Arguments
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) pleaded their case with reference to section 300 as clause (c ) of the section says “If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person”. The defendant argued that the only intention was to cause bodily injury as inferred from the facts of the case and not to cause death. Secondly, they quoted the second part of this section “and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”. They made the point that both these ingredients are necessary to bring home the charge of murder under section 300.
The defendant further took the help of the case Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan which essentially stated that when a single blow causes death it becomes more arduous to ascertain what the intention of the accused is and up to what degree of bodily harm was intended.
R. v. Steane was also referred to in this case, where the learned Chief Justice had said that where the intention is laid down, it must be proved. Of course the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
Relevant legal provisions
Section 149 Indian Penal Code (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), now section 90 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023
Section 300 Indian Penal Code (Murder), now Section 101 BNS
Section 302 Indian Penal Code (Punishment for murder), now Section 103 BNS
Section 324 Indian Penal Code (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), now Section 118 BNS
Section 323 Indian Penal Code (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), now Section 115(2)
Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridk (1916)
R v. Steane (1947)
Court’s Judgement
The judgment of the court was delivered by Bose J and the court held Virsa Singh liable under section 302 of IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Khem Singh. the Session Court convicted the accused under section 302 IPC and this conviction was upheld by the High Court.
The court’s judgment laid down four principles that became the “locus classicus” for understanding similar cases in the future. Let’s discuss them below:
- There should be a presence of bodily injury and it is a detached inquiry. All these must be inferred from the facts of the case, so as to lay down specific kind of wounds inflicted.
- The nature of the injury needs to be examined. For example, where the wound was inflicted, the lethality of the wound, and how deep the injury caused is.
- The court said that in such cases intention is also to be accounted for. Whether the accused intentionally inflicted a mortal wound or was his intention something else. For instance, if a person wanted to injure person B on the arm however due to resistance on the part of the victim, the accused hit the victim’s head. Here there was no intention to kill. Thus, he will not be held liable for death.
- Here, in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, the above-noted principle of intention will not be applicable since; as per the doctor’s report, the victim had such severe injuries that his intestines ended up falling out of the wound. The injury sustained was of such severity that it would have killed a man in ordinary circumstances.
The court also observed that it is to be factored in if the wound was delivered by the person with such severity and force that it would have killed a person in ordinary circumstances.
- The death caused by the wound should be an objective inquiry as established and concluded from the facts of the cases and then the question of intention should be set aside.
The court removed doubts by saying that sections 300 (a) and (b) both hold different meanings and should not be interchangeable or used as an escape route. Section 300 (a) talks about causing a wound with the intention to cause death on the other hand section 300(b) talks about the act done with the intention of causing bodily injury which is enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Impact and Significance
The case was a milestone in understanding the elements of Section 302 (c). It laid down the foundation for easy evaluation of future cases with similar facts. The case highlighted a lot of factors such as the intention of the accused, the gravity of the injury, and also the question of the common object. Thus, this case continues to help remove any ambiguity in cases of similar nature.
Critical Analysis
While the intention or the mens rea remains a significant essential to constitute a crime however we might need to reshape its meaning with different cases. In the following case, the court laid down the fact that if intention was the only determinant for holding a person liable for his action then there would be scarcely anyone punished for their acts. Everyone could assert that it was not their intention to cause anyone any harm or to cause death, as is the assertion by the accused in this case. It may not have been his intention to cause death of Khem Singh but as per the doctor’s report the spear wound was so gruesome that it victim’s intestines and other parts could be seen through the wound. Such horrid incidents should not be excused only based on intention.
The court rightly distinguished between Section 300 (a) and (b) by explaining the meaning with precision. The principle difference is the intention of causing death in (a) and the intention of causing “bodily harm” in (b); however, in both cases, death ensues.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, MANU/SC/0041/1958
ijalr, “CASE ANALYSIS: VIRSA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB by-Divisha Srivastava – Ijalr” (Ijalr, December 7, 2022) <https://ijalr.in/volume-1/issue-4/case-analysis-virsa-singh-v-state-of-punjab-by-divisha-srivastava/>
“Digital Supreme Court Reports” <https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=Mjk5MA==>
Emperor v. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan 1916(18)BomLR793, MANU/MH/0086/1916
R v. Steane [1947] 1 KB 997
Leave a Reply